429 Help to 1967 mustang!!!!!!!!!

danny clemens · Sep 14, 2005

Have you thought about an FE? A 428 with aftermarket heads is very impressive. FE's also came in these Mustangs from the factory.

rbohm · Sep 15, 2005

the 429/460 fits the 67-70 mustang engine compartment better than the FE motors do. the swap is rather easy to do, and maintenance is easier than with an FE.

67GTA-FB429 · Sep 15, 2005

Aren't the FE engines shorter than the 385 engines? I know in my car hood clearance has been a major PITA. And it came with a 390 many years ago.

Edbert · Sep 15, 2005

Dimensions on the engine bay of the 67-70 are nearly identical, they ARE identical in most ways. A normal headed 385/Lima motor (not a 429-boss) WILL fit without sheetmetal work, your only gonna need swap parts, start with mounts and exhaust, the rest is even easier.

67GTA, that is backward WRT the block, the 385 series were designed much like the Windsors, the bottom of the block was the centerline of the crank, it did not have "Y" shape from the longer "skirts" of the FE series.

67GTA-FB429 · Sep 15, 2005

Edbert said:
............

67GTA, that is backward WRT the block, the 385 series were designed much like the Windsors, the bottom of the block was the centerline of the crank, it did not have "Y" shape from the longer "skirts" of the FE series.

huh? what the heck is WRT??

HHStang · Sep 15, 2005

I'd use the exhaust manifolds and not worry about headers. I have a banged up set (67/429) I'd sell cheap if someone wants them. I'd probably do a pre-73 460 too if you don't already have the 429.

Edbert · Sep 16, 2005

WRT= "with regard to", at least it does IIRC, LOL.

67GTA-FB429 · Sep 16, 2005

OH. Ok. (now I feel old)

So you are saying that the 385s have a shorter deck height than the FEs?

HH: The exhaust manifolds are a great choice. That is what I have on my car and I am just under 400hp at the wheels. They are a cheaper and easier exhaust solution as opposed to $700 'special' headers.

HHStang · Sep 16, 2005

Plus the long tube headers bottom out "big time". I have FPA shorties now though.

Edbert · Sep 16, 2005

67GTA-FB429 said:
OH. Ok. (now I feel old)

I do too, all the time, I'm just used to the "l337 $pe4K o teh intardnet", also known as typing for the lazy

67GTA-FB429 said:
So you are saying that the 385s have a shorter deck height than the FEs?
.

Not authoritative enough on that, I don't even know the relative deck heights but the block itself is generaly a larger verion of the windsor (260/289/302/351) style of compactness, whereas the FE was a new version of the "Y". I was trying to find good illustrations of this on the web but got tired of looking and I can't draw it in ASCI so let me try words...

The lower portion of the block on the FE series used the heavy cast iron skirts that came straight down from the cylinder walls to the pan rails PAST the centerline of the crank. This gave them great strength (also allowed for cross-bolting the main caps) but also great weight. The 385s (and 335s) used the more modern (at that time) method of "thin walled casting" and stopping the block at the centerline of the crank just like on the Windsors. A Lima-460 block wieghs less than a 360-FE, and has the advantages of canted valve heads (but the heads are larger/heavier) but total engine weight is in the ballpark.

Somewhat ironic is that the truly modern engines (4.6/5.4 SOHC/DOHC) have gone back to a long skirt design and although they have small displacement they are larger than a 429 Boss!

Edbert · Sep 16, 2005

I found this and don't think it is authoritative but is still interesting:

Ford flathead V8 525
Ford flathead V8 569 ('53 239 CID)
Ford 4.6 SOHC 530 (iron block aluminum heads)
Ford 4.6 DOHC 525 (aluminum block and heads)
Ford 255 Windsor 468
Ford 289/302 V8 460 (late 5.0s are a bit lighter)
Ford BOSS 302 500
Ford 351 Cleveland 550 (includes BOSS and Australian 302-C)
Ford 351 Windsor 510
Ford Y block V8 625 (272-312 CID)
Ford FE big block 650 (332-428 CID)
Ford FE big block 670 ('59 352 CID)
Ford 429/460 V8 640
Ford BOSS 429 680 (iron block, aluminum heads)

67GTA-FB429 · Sep 16, 2005

Is that the weights of the engines?

Edbert · Sep 16, 2005

Sicarius428 · Sep 16, 2005

I can't find an exact weight of the 428 FE vs. 429/460 weight because they all vary from source to source. This point comes up every now and then. I was always under the impression that the 429/460 was heavier though it was intended to be lighter than the 428. When you are getting into the heavy weight class of engines... I doubt it will matter much either way... Should be a nonissue.
Kevin

429 Help to 1967 mustang!!!!!!!!!

danny clemens

Member

rbohm

67GTA-FB429

Member

Edbert

67GTA-FB429

Member

HHStang

Member

Edbert

67GTA-FB429

Member

HHStang

Member

Edbert

Edbert

67GTA-FB429

Member

Edbert

Sicarius428

Active Member

Similar threads

429 Help to 1967 mustang!!!!!!!!!

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency